Brahma Sutras

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sravna,

Being beyond Gunas as in Nirguna does not translate as being not able to "think" or "act".

That would make Nirguna Brahman sound like an Inert entity(Jada)..which I feel is not what Advaita is trying to convey.

The problem is we humans think and act the human way that is through our senses..but we have no idea about the mechanics of Nirguna Brahman at all..so something we do not know about...we can not say that It does not "think" or "act".

What say you??

Dear Renuka,

I am not talking about the inability but I am saying that thinking and acting are the capabilities of the lower realities. Nirguna brahman is in a more exalted state that it doesn't need to think and act and also thinking and acting means spanning time which does not fit with the concept of an eternal nirguna brahman.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,



There is a logical reason for saguna brahman to exist. I hope you accept the proposition that for a timeless entity thinking and acting does not make sense. But since it is timeless it can be said to be the ultimate reality. I am repeating the point I made earlier by saying that the ultimate entity represents everything and so nirguna does not mean nothing as you make it out to be. A feature or characteristic such as beauty or intelligence makes sense only in space and time and it does not make sense in something timeless. It makes sense to view a timeless reality differently from our physical reality where no guna need exist but still be complete. I think only in that sense nirguna needs to be understood and not as empty or void.

It makes logical sense to think of such a timeless entity as nirguna brahman as the first cause. But we know that the physical world exists from our own consciousness. Since nirguna brahman is beyond thoughts or actions there should have been some other entity that should have been the cause of the physical world. The concept of saguna brahman as naturally coming out of nirguna brahman and creating the physical world makes sense. Saguna brahman and the physical world it creates are still illusory from the point of view of nirguna brahman and such an existence so is not ultimately real. You can see that from what is said about self realized soul which becomes one with brahman experiences nothing but the ultimate reality and is in fact the ultimate reality.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I am talking about what Sankara talks about nirguna brahman. It is generally understood that the term Parabrahman denotes a state which "is eternally self-identical, strictly one, always of the same nature, without parts, and hence without change, perfectly immutable in its essential nature, indestructible because of knowing no increase or decrease, imperceptible, inconceivable, ungraspable, devoid of all qualities, without parts, untouched by action, perfectly quiet, pure and stainless, neither coarse nor fine, neither big nor small. Neither space nor time can be conceived in it; for it is neither this nor that. It is great, unborn, undecaying or unaging, indestructible, immortal and free from all fear. It is different from vice and virtue both, and different from both cause and effect. The triple-time designated as past, present and future does not enter into its nature. It is not in time nor time in it. So also neither space is in it, nor it, in space. It has neither inside or outside, no cause, no effect. In fact, none of the categories in terms of which we understand things is applicable to it. It is indefinable because it is indeterminate." (Parabrahman - TS Wiki)

The Upanishad gives a very clear picture about Brahman, as under:

स होवाचैतद् वै तदक्षरं गार्गि ब्राह्मणा अभिवदन्त्यस्थूलमनण्वमदीर्घमलोहितमस्नेहमच्छायमतमोऽवाय्वनाकाशमसङ्गमरसमगन्धमचक्षुष्कमश्रोत्रमवाग्अमनोऽतेजस्कमप्राणममुखममात्रमनन्तरमबाह्यं न तदश्नाति किञ्चन न तदश्नाति कश्चन । III-8-8

sa hovācaitad vai tadakṣaraṃ gārgi brāhmaṇā abhivadantyasthūlamanaṇvamadīrghamalohitamasnehamacchāyamatamo:'vāyvanākāśamasaṅgamarasamagandhamacakṣuṣkamaśrotramavāg–amano:'tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātramanantaramabāhyaṃ na tadaśnāti kiñcana na tadaśnāti kaścana | (Br. Ar. U. III-8-8)

(He - yājñavalkya - said: "O gārgi! the knowers of Brahman declare, this indeed is that indestructible. It is neither gross nor insignificantly small, neither short nor long, neither reddish nor oily, neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor ether, unattached, neither essence nor smell, without eyes or ears, without speech or mind, without splendour, without "prāṇa" or the vital air or mouth, without measure, and without interior or exterior. IT does not eat anything and none eats IT.

Hence it does not seem possible or admissible to take the escape route by proposing "Being beyond Gunas as in Nirguna does not translate as being not able to "think" or "act". That would make Nirguna Brahman sound like an Inert entity(Jada)..which I feel is not what Advaita is trying to convey.", etc., especially in the face of the clear statement of the Upanishad that IT has no mind.

What I and perhaps other readers would be interested is in Sankara's exposition of His advaita, not in Sravna's or anyone else's interpretation of advaita.

I shall return if there is Sankara's view points being discussed here and not yours or our other member's guess works.
[/FONT]

 

[Nara]

....By the time advaitins come to the stage of BG, they have māyā and "saguna brahman" (which again manifested as Krishna, they can easily assert) to explain away BG.

How could they do it with a straight face? Either the saguna brhman (Krishna) was unaware that Arjuna was really an illusory projection and went on with BG, or, the saguna brahman (Krishna) was aware Arjuna was real but went ahead and preached Advaita to him anyway.

 

[renuka]

The Upanishad gives a very clear picture about Brahman, as under:

स होवाचैतद् वै तदक्षरं गार्गि ब्राह्मणा अभिवदन्त्यस्थूलमनण्वमदीर्घमलोहितमस्नेहमच्छायमतमोऽवाय्वनाकाशमसङ्गमरसमगन्धमचक्षुष्कमश्रोत्रमवाग्अमनोऽतेजस्कमप्राणममुखममात्रमनन्तरमबाह्यं न तदश्नाति किञ्चन न तदश्नाति कश्चन । III-8-8

sa hovācaitad vai tadakṣaraṃ gārgi brāhmaṇā abhivadantyasthūlamanaṇvamadīrghamalohitamasnehamacchāyamatamo:'vāyvanākāśamasaṅgamarasamagandhamacakṣuṣkamaśrotramavāg–amano:'tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātramanantaramabāhyaṃ na tadaśnāti kiñcana na tadaśnāti kaścana | (Br. Ar. U. III-8-8)

(He - yājñavalkya - said: "O gārgi! the knowers of Brahman declare, this indeed is that indestructible. It is neither gross nor insignificantly small, neither short nor long, neither reddish nor oily, neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor ether, unattached, neither essence nor smell, without eyes or ears, without speech or mind, without splendour, without "prāṇa" or the vital air or mouth, without measure, and without interior or exterior. IT does not eat anything and none eats IT.

Hence it does not seem possible or admissible to take the escape route by proposing "Being beyond Gunas as in Nirguna does not translate as being not able to "think" or "act". That would make Nirguna Brahman sound like an Inert entity(Jada)..which I feel is not what Advaita is trying to convey.", etc., especially in the face of the clear statement of the Upanishad that IT has no mind.

What I and perhaps other readers would be interested is in Sankara's exposition of His advaita, not in Sravna's or anyone else's interpretation of advaita.

I shall return if there is Sankara's view points being discussed here and not yours or our other member's guess works.

Dear Sangom ji,

Yes it is clear from the stanza that Nirguna Brahman does not have a mind...but it does not say anywhere in the stanza that Brahman can't "think".

We humans can only understand anything when we compare anything with ourselves.
Hence we can only figure out that "thinking" is only possible with a mind.

That is why I had written earlier that none of us actually know the mechanics of Nirguna Brahman in the real sense and compare and contrast with our own mind and senses for probable clues.

Omniscience does not need a mind yet all knowing.

Anyway as you have said :

I shall return if there is Sankara's view points being discussed here and not yours or our other member's guess works.

Since mine is sort of guess work..I rest my case.

 

[tks]

.....

.....

What I and perhaps other readers would be interested is in Sankara's exposition of His advaita, not in Sravna's or anyone else's interpretation of advaita.

I shall return if there is Sankara's view points being discussed here and not yours or our other member's guess works.

Obviously proper exposition of Sri Sankara's work will require major effort and no forum discussions can provide satisfactory answers.


Having stated this let me ack that your questions are very relevant. For example how can a formless unreachable Nirguna Brahman (defined for example in Nasadiya Suktam and elsewhere) be expected to 'create' all this universe? Is this to be believed ? why not start off with an all powerful entity that creates all this universe and not have to posit a Nirguna Brahman?


But I sense in your posting an attitude that Sri Sankara has concocted and wiggled around answering questions etc. I know you have this firm view, so why show interest in any of these topics? I am just curious.

Also in one of your responses I understood your view that Sri Sankara has skippped commenting over key verses which Brahmins tried to protect from being exposed .. I find these amusing for the simple reason that the Bhashya isextraordinarily honest in expressing opposing views before refuting them. There is never an attempt to gloss over any of the smallest objections.

Sri Sankara had the greatest respect to Sankya because they were atheists but stilll were Vaidikas ... and extraordinarily logical - therefore answering their views were important.

While Brahmins reference may bring some masala (may be Nonveg as one member put it) it does not help to create a scholarly discussion environment. It might fetch some Thug-Guna displays at best


I started answering and realized my inability to express succinctly.

The forum can provide references, raise awareness and provide entertainment using Vedantic words. I do not want to contrbute serious discussions for the entertainment though I am more than happy to share my views when applicable.


Sri Sravana has tried to summarize dicussions points from the book (since I have the same book I can say they are fine).


The short answer to your question is that so called Saguna Brahman and all powers of Isvara are not real (not Sat). This leads to Jagat being purely linguistic (and unreal).

I know this is very unsatisfying since the computer your are reading this post is real, the food you just ate is real and the people talking to you are all real.


How could rational people accept this ?

To understand this (note the focus on the word understand and not swallow ) you have to satisfy the prerequisites ...

The easier approach is to call this all nonsense and move on enjoying life

 

[Vaagmi]

1)Obviously proper exposition of Sri Sankara's work will require major effort and no forum discussions can provide satisfactory answers.Having stated this let me ack that your questions are very relevant. For example how can a formless unreachable Nirguna Brahman (defined for example in Nasadiya Suktam and elsewhere) be expected to 'create' all this universe? Is this to be believed ? why not start off with an all powerful entity that creates all this universe and not have to posit a Nirguna Brahman?

2)But I sense in your posting an attitude that Sri Sankara has concocted and wiggled around answering questions etc. I know you have this firm view, so why show interest in any of these topics? I am just curious.

3)Also in one of your responses I understood your view that Sri Sankara has skippped commenting over key verses which Brahmins tried to protect from being exposed .. I find these amusing for the simple reason that the Bhashya is extraordinarily honest in expressing opposing views before refuting them. There is never an attempt to gloss over any of the smallest objections.

4)Sri Sankara had the greatest respect to Sankya because they were atheists but stilll were Vaidikas ... and extraordinarily logical - therefore answering their views were important.

5)While Brahmins reference may bring some masala (may be Nonveg as one member put it) it does not help to create a scholarly discussion environment. It might fetch some Thug-Guna displays at best

6)I started answering and realized my inability to express succinctly.
The forum can provide references, raise awareness and provide entertainment using Vedantic words. I do not want to contrbute serious discussions for the entertainment though I am more than happy to share my views when applicable.
Sri Sravana has tried to summarize dicussions points from the book (since I have the same book I can say they are fine).


7)The short answer to your question is that so called Saguna Brahman and all powers of Isvara are not real (not Sat). This leads to Jagat being purely linguistic (and unreal).
I know this is very unsatisfying since the computer your are reading this post is real, the food you just ate is real and the people talking to you are all real.

8)How could rational people accept this ? To understand this (note the focus on the word understand and not swallow ) you have to satisfy the prerequisites ...The easier approach is to call this all nonsense and move on enjoying life

Dear tks,

1)2)3) and 5). Sri Sangom and sri Nara have declared themselves to be an agnostic and an atheist respectively. They have no respect for what they call brahminism either. Accepting this position can you answer them? Of course attitude matters to learn anything. But there are many others in the forum who are watching and reading with interest what is going on. They discount all that Sangom and Nara say about brahminism and about their agnostic and atheistic views. Your and Sravana's answers will be read with interest by the rest of the members who are interested here. Please ignore every provocation as sravana does and move on with your exposition of what you have understood. That would help.

6)7) and 8). You can elaborate on the problem you have stated in 7). You may also state the prerequisites and make this useful.

I am looking for validation for and new knowledge about some of my own understanding of the Brahmasutra. Thanks.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think the problem with understanding nirguna brahman is that we cannot understand something without the notion of space and time. It is beyond the grasp of mind to understand the idea of nirguna brahman. So it is not possible to logically argue about something which is beyond mind's grasp. We just have to accept that timeless entity can be everything without existing in the way we do. But from our perspective since it is formless because it doesn't exist in space and since it is unchanging because it doesn't exist in time it seems to be an inert entity. But that is only what we can grasp based on our notion of existence.

Think about this. There has to be something eternal so as to be the source of everything. Otherwise with the notion of time we cannot answer the question what is the first cause? So I think the existence of something like nirguna brahman is necessary. Also it does not initiate action or thought being timeless as that would mean we have to invoke the notion of time.

That is the reason I said an entity that thinks and acts is necessary to create the world. You could ask the logical question : why not the world directly be projected somehow from nirguna brahman? My answer is we need some entity which is needed to intervene in the affairs of the world like an avatar so that the mechanisms of the world are properly taken care of. Spirtuality and materialism alternately rule through out the existence of the universe. These I think are to provide diverse circumstances for the souls to learn from its life experiences. So we have the four yugas with different levels of spirituality existing in them.

So when spirituality is at a low ebb we need a spiritual force in the physical world that sets the situation right. That probably is the reason for an avatar and the need for direct divine intervention. Since nirguna brahman is divorced from the physical world, the concept of saguna brahman as the creator, sustainer and the destroyer of the universe makes sense.

The above are of course my views but I have given my logic and rationale for the existence of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman which are described in advaita since you seem to be keen on knowing the necessity for saguna brahman and nirguna brahman. I welcome anyone familiar with sankara's views on the same to share it here as I am not aware of his views if he has expressed any.

 

[sangom]

How could they do it with a straight face? Either the saguna brhman (Krishna) was unaware that Arjuna was really an illusory projection and went on with BG, or, the saguna brahman (Krishna) was aware Arjuna was real but went ahead and preached Advaita to him anyway.

When one comes to this world (the lower of the lower reality, according to some experts!) it may easily be said that everything is unreal; Krishna, Arjuna, etc., were all imaginary or unreal characters (from the point of view of the Nirguna Brahman —as our Shri Sravna often asserts!). Curiously, I - an agnostic with a basic belief that BG, the epics, the Puranas, etc., are all works of ordinary human minds with a flair for composing sanskrit poetry - also believe just as would the Nirguna Parabrahman (NPB) will view these from ITs vantage point. May be, so, the NPB view is akin to the agnostic view

Hence the most logical way to explain BG is to consider it as nothing more than a poet's skill, knowledge and imagination, and to treat the characters as just unreal just as one would treat any novel, say, MohamuLL.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think the problem with understanding nirguna brahman is that we cannot understand something without the notion of space and time. It is beyond the grasp of mind to understand the idea of nirguna brahman. So it is not possible to logically argue about something which is beyond mind's grasp. We just have to accept that timeless entity can be everything without existing in the way we do. But from our perspective since it is formless because it doesn't exist in space and since it is unchanging because it doesn't exist in time it seems to be an inert entity. But that is only what we can grasp based on our notion of existence.

Think about this. There has to be something eternal so as to be the source of everything. Otherwise with the notion of time we cannot answer the question what is the first cause? So I think the existence of something like nirguna brahman is necessary. Also it does not initiate action or thought being timeless as that would mean we have to invoke the notion of time.

That is the reason I said an entity that thinks and acts is necessary to create the world. You could ask the logical question : why not the world directly be projected somehow from nirguna brahman? My answer is we need some entity which is needed to intervene in the affairs of the world like an avatar so that the mechanisms of the world are properly taken care of. Spirtuality and materialism alternately rule through out the existence of the universe. These I think are to provide diverse circumstances for the souls to learn from its life experiences. So we have the four yugas with different levels of spirituality existing in them.

So when spirituality is at a low ebb we need a spiritual force in the physical world that sets the situation right. That probably is the reason for an avatar and the need for direct divine intervention. Since nirguna brahman is divorced from the physical world, the concept of saguna brahman as the creator, sustainer and the destroyer of the universe makes sense.

The above are of course my views but I have given my logic and rationale for the existence of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman which are described in advaita since you seem to be keen on knowing the necessity for saguna brahman and nirguna brahman. I welcome anyone familiar with sankara's views on the same to share it here as I am not aware of his views if he has expressed any.

Dear Sravna,

Knowledge should be practical and useful also. I have no use for an imaginary situation in which my car has its body made of sheet of water and my shoes made of sheet of fire. You can not say some thing is this and then say that it is unthinkable. If it is so unintelligible I have no use for it. And so I do not want it. I will have nothing to do with that. What is the need for this entity when the so called next level saguna brahmam and all its creations are all entities with which I am able to deal with comfortably in an intellectual thought process? This knowledge about this unthinkable, unintelligible, inexplicable (and so non-existent) is not useful or practical for me. So I do not bother about it.

Please let me know what you have to say about this position.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think the problem with understanding nirguna brahman is that we cannot understand something without the notion of space and time. It is beyond the grasp of mind to understand the idea of nirguna brahman. So it is not possible to logically argue about something which is beyond mind's grasp. We just have to accept that timeless entity can be everything without existing in the way we do. But from our perspective since it is formless because it doesn't exist in space and since it is unchanging because it doesn't exist in time it seems to be an inert entity. But that is only what we can grasp based on our notion of existence.

Think about this. There has to be something eternal so as to be the source of everything. Otherwise with the notion of time we cannot answer the question what is the first cause? So I think the existence of something like nirguna brahman is necessary. Also it does not initiate action or thought being timeless as that would mean we have to invoke the notion of time.

That is the reason I said an entity that thinks and acts is necessary to create the world. You could ask the logical question : why not the world directly be projected somehow from nirguna brahman? My answer is we need some entity which is needed to intervene in the affairs of the world like an avatar so that the mechanisms of the world are properly taken care of. Spirtuality and materialism alternately rule through out the existence of the universe. These I think are to provide diverse circumstances for the souls to learn from its life experiences. So we have the four yugas with different levels of spirituality existing in them.

So when spirituality is at a low ebb we need a spiritual force in the physical world that sets the situation right. That probably is the reason for an avatar and the need for direct divine intervention. Since nirguna brahman is divorced from the physical world, the concept of saguna brahman as the creator, sustainer and the destroyer of the universe makes sense.

The above are of course my views but I have given my logic and rationale for the existence of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman which are described in advaita since you seem to be keen on knowing the necessity for saguna brahman and nirguna brahman. I welcome anyone familiar with sankara's views on the same to share it here as I am not aware of his views if he has expressed any.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I am not talking about "understanding nirguna brahman" (NB). Nor am I saying anything about whether that NB is beyond space and time, etc. My simple requirement is that the book by Swami Vireswarananda, which you said (in the OP) contained interpretation of the sutras according to Sankara, may be containing the comments of Sankara about the points which I have raised, and if so, those relevant portions from that book may be furnished here.

Since you seem to be hesitating to even understand this point, a doubt comes to my mind whether the said book does justice to Sankara, or whether Sankara himself has, conveniently, omitted all these difficult points and accepted the Brahma Sutra edict of ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम् (ईक्षतेः न, अशब्दम्= Not due to will or samkalpa, veda does not admit it) and proceeded ahead forgetting the obstacles put forward by the various Upanishadic truths which appear to contradict the Brahma Sutra affirmation that the NB could not have willed, decided, did samkalpa since the Veda/s do not admit of such a phenomenon.

Your arguments in paras 2 and 3 of the above post appear to me to be more of just 'inventing' some stop-gap or escapist methods so that there can be one single reality or existence (sat) in the beginning and, at the same time, we can have one so-called 'creator' to somehow logically explain creation and this jagat according to our day-to-day sense of reality and logic. But then the taittirīyopaniṣad clearly proclaims:

असद्वा इदम् अग्र आसीत् ततो वै सत् अजायत । तदात्मानग्ँ स्वयम् अकुरुत ।
(asadvā idam agra āsīt tato vai sat ajāyata | tadātmānagm̐ svayam akuruta |)

Non-existence, unreality, or asat was there in the very beginning; from that came "sat" or reality. Itself did that make itself.

Again, the same Upanishad states:

सोऽकामयत । बहु स्याम् प्रजायेयेति । स तपोऽतप्यत । स तपस्तप्य्वा इदँ सर्वमसृजत यदिदम् किंच । तत् सृष्ट्वा तदेवनुप्राविशत् । तदनुप्रविश्य सच्चत्यच्चाभवत्।
(soऽ'kāmayata | bahu syām prajāyeyeti | sa tapoऽ'tapyata | sa tapastapyvā idam̐ sarvamasṛjata yadidam kiṃca | tat sṛṣṭvā tadevanuprāviśat | tadanupraviśya saccatyaccābhavat|)

That (one Reality) desired: "May I become many". So He (It) performed "tapas" or austeriries. After performing tapas (austerities), It created whatever is this whole (jagat). Having created, It entered itself into it (all that was created). After It entered, all that is 'sat' and 'tyat' came into being.

All these (and other) Upanishadic statements do not seem to need a saguna brahman and they all talk about NB only and that exactly was the reason (provocation?) for the Brahma Sutrakaara to specially include this sutra in order to deny or wish away all these contradictions within the
śruti fold itself, it would appear. What is now required is to see and examine how Sankara treats these points.

Your friend says it is not possible to produce Sankara's commentary in a forum like this. I have Sankara's Bhashya in sanskrit but there is no translation in English, Malayalam or Tamil which I can grasp. That is the position.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sravna,

Refer post #360:

I have Vireswar's book with me on loan. Please reproduce verbatim page xix of introduction upto page xxvii to give Vireswara's views and pages 31 to35 for Sankara's views as interpreted by Vireswara so that the member can draw his own conclusions and present them here for discussion with you. That will put an end to this tug of war and move the discussion further. Thanks.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Here is the sutra verbatim from the book:

The first cause an intelligent principle

Sutra 5-11 refute these arguments of the samkhyas and establish brahman as the first cause. The discussion mainly refers to the sixth chapter of the chandogya upanishad.

On account of thinking (being attributed to the first cause by the scriptures, the pradhana) is not (the first cause referred to by them); it (Pradhana) is not based on the scriptures.

The first cause is said, in the scriptures to have willed or thought before creation, "This universe, my dear, was but Real (Sat) in the beginning-One only without a second. It thought, 'may I be many (the atman) willed. "Let me project world; So it projected these worlds". Such thinking or willing is not possible to the insentient Pradhana. It is possible only if the first cause is an intelligent principle like brahman.

The all-knowingness attributed to the Pradhana because of its Sattva component is inadmissible, as Sattva is not predominant in the Pradhana, since all the three gunas are in a state of equilibrium. If in spite of this it is said to be capable of producing knowledge, then the other two Gunas must be equally capable of retarding knowledge. So while Sattva will make it all-knowing , Rajas and Tamas will make it partly knowing which is a contradiction.

The all-knowingness and creation are not possible to brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable is also not true. For brahman can be all-knowing and creative through maya , So, brahman, the sat of the text quoted , which thought, is the first cause.

The Samkhyas again try to avoid the difficulty created by thinking being attributed to the first cause thus: In the same text quoted above it is said further on, "That fire thought, "may I be many, may I grow!" and it projected water... Water thought ... it projected earth. Here fire and water are material things, and yet thinking is attributed to them. similarly the thinking by the Sat (Real) in the text originally quoted, can also be taken figuratively in which case the Pradhana, though insentient can yet be the first cause.

This argument the following sutra refutes.


Dear Shri Sangom,

Quoting the following line from the above text,

"The all-knowingness and creation are not possible to brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable is also not true. For brahman can be all-knowing and creative through maya , So, brahman, the sat of the text quoted , which thought, is the first cause."

We see that since the brahman referred is said to use maya it cannot be nirguna brahman.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Knowledge should be practical and useful also. I have no use for an imaginary situation in which my car has its body made of sheet of water and my shoes made of sheet of fire. You can not say some thing is this and then say that it is unthinkable. If it is so unintelligible I have no use for it. And so I do not want it. I will have nothing to do with that. What is the need for this entity when the so called next level saguna brahmam and all its creations are all entities with which I am able to deal with comfortably in an intellectual thought process? This knowledge about this unthinkable, unintelligible, inexplicable (and so non-existent) is not useful or practical for me. So I do not bother about it.

Please let me know what you have to say about this position.

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

I see your point. But the knowledge of nirguna brahman is though not useful in the way you say is necessary to be understood as a spiritual truth. It says there is an ultimate reality attaining which is the goal of every soul and every soul eventually becomes one with that reality. You will eventually able to grasp it when the self is free of the shackles of space and time and thus understanding it and becoming one with it is the ultimate goal

So when I say mind cannot grasp it , I mean we cannot logically talk and analyze about nirguna brahman but can only know it directly.

 

[Nara]

...."The all-knowingness and creation are not possible to brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable is also not true. For brahman can be all-knowing and creative through maya , So, brahman, the sat of the text quoted , which thought, is the first cause."

Then how can the statement "in the beginning-One only without a second" be true? Whence cometh maya?

Also, this maya being the instrument of creation seems to be the interpretation of the author of this book, not the purport of the sutra itself.

We see that since the brahman referred is said to use maya it cannot be nirguna brahman.

Yes, there goes advaitam!

 

[sangom]

< snip >
The all-knowingness and creation are not possible to brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable is also not true. For brahman can be all-knowing and creative through maya , So, brahman, the sat of the text quoted , which thought, is the first cause.

<snip >


Dear Shri Sangom,

Quoting the following line from the above text,

"The all-knowingness and creation are not possible to brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable is also not true. For brahman can be all-knowing and creative through maya , So, brahman, the sat of the text quoted , which thought, is the first cause."

We see that since the brahman referred is said to use maya it cannot be nirguna brahman.

So, it is the saguna brahman which becomes all-knowing and creative through māyā, as per the penultimate paragraph. Then why does the Swami's book say :

"The all-knowingness and creation are not possible to brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable is also not true. For brahman can be all-knowing and creative through maya , So, brahman, the sat of the text quoted , which thought, is the first cause." ?

If both the NB as well as the SB are thus capable of thinking process and the creative ability, why at all propose an additional SB, like a fifth wheel?

Since māyā is said to be used by the brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable, it is apparent that there has been some stage in which NB and māyā existed before creation. Without going into the space or time sequence of items - since creation had not yet taken place and so the space & time illusions had not yet come into being - it will mean that māyā existed alongside the NB or, alternatively, māyā formed a part or constituent of the brahman which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable, that is the NB itself. In either case the supposition of a NB stands exposed as wrong.

I would like the above points to be considered and discussed please.

Though some very learned members appear to be impatient to move the discussion further, let me invite your kind attention that the said discussion seemed lapsing into a coma stage and that was why I expressly said I was trying to inject some life into that static thread.

 

[sravna]

So, it is the saguna brahman which becomes all-knowing and creative through māyā, as per the penultimate paragraph. Then why does the Swami's book say :

"The all-knowingness and creation are not possible to brahman, which is pure intelligence itself and unchangeable is also not true. For brahman can be all-knowing and creative through maya , So, brahman, the sat of the text quoted , which thought, is the first cause." ?

The brahman mentioned through out refers to saguna brahman in my view because maya is said to be used by brahman. The text says this: "This universe, my dear, was but Real (Sat) in the beginning-One only without a second."

I think "the universe" refers to a reality external to nirguna brahman and the words "one only without a second" should refer to saguna brahman as the text further states that the world was projected by it. Advaita very clearly says that the physical world was projected by saguna brahman and not by nirguna brahman.

 

[tks]

Dear tks,

1)2)3) and 5). Sri Sangom and sri Nara have declared themselves to be an agnostic and an atheist respectively. They have no respect for what they call brahminism either. Accepting this position can you answer them? Of course attitude matters to learn anything. But there are many others in the forum who are watching and reading with interest what is going on. They discount all that Sangom and Nara say about brahminism and about their agnostic and atheistic views. Your and Sravana's answers will be read with interest by the rest of the members who are interested here. Please ignore every provocation as sravana does and move on with your exposition of what you have understood. That would help.

6)7) and 8). You can elaborate on the problem you have stated in 7). You may also state the prerequisites and make this useful.

I am looking for validation for and new knowledge about some of my own understanding of the Brahmasutra. Thanks.

Dear Sri Vaagmi

First I really do not care for any 'provocation' and that has never stopped me in responding

Though I may not agree with 'attitude' oriented comments by Sri Sangom , his questions are actually on the mark and he does spend time doing some 'home work' before his posts.

I think your suggestion for reproducing verbatim specific sections of the book is excellent. Based on discussions that follows I will share what I understand as appropriate especially with reference to specific questions you have referred to.

Let me digress a bit to share a few other views.


If I *think* I am reiterating a well established teaching - be it in Science or Vedanta - I am straightforward (Dr Renu will say blunt) in my critique if I sensed vagueness and lack of preparation. I will have no issues with anyone's stated beliefs - Athiests and Agnotics inclusive -since they are upfront as to where they stand.

I sincerely think that people who make things up without spending time to learn a field properly are actually showing disrespect to the teaching and teaching methods.

In an open forum anyone can share any views - provided they are qualified as own views and not attribute to advocating a field of knowledge.

I think taking a book and summarizing a book is fine, but in my view Sri Sravana is not advocating Advita knowledge but simply putting forth his own beliefs which do not have any basis other appearance due to use of some Vedantic terms. That is why Sri Sangom and others find obvious issues.

Significant infrastructure learning is needed to make sense out of all this.

In my understanding Swami Vireswarananda does not do justice to the teaching of Sri Sankara -- Perhaps he assumes a lot of background to start with..

There is this question of practical applicability of these topics. Only an advanced student who has spent years learning basics will find the Sutra discusssion to be useful and that too only with the help of Bhashyas.

A better topic for summary discussion would be chapters of BG that will be much more relevant.


Let me provide some provacative comments to add some hopefully Vegetarian Masala

Perhaps in my next post

 

[Nara]

.... Krishna, Arjuna, etc., were all imaginary or unreal characters (from the point of view of the Nirguna Brahman —as our Shri Sravna often asserts!).

Dear sangom, I agree with your assesment of BG. But, looking from advaitic POV, it is a wonder how they can believe, within their axiomatic system, that BG can teach them anything real.

 

[sravna]

I understand why Shri Sangom was so firm in his objections to my categorization of the brahman referred in sutra 5 as saguna brahman. The author of the book refers to brahman as implying nirguna brahman. But I think we need to interpret the meaning of brahman purely by context. So when brahman is said to be the object of inquiry or the purport of all vedanta texts, it should refer to nirguna brahman. But when brahman is said to be the creator of the universe it obviously should refer to saguna brahman. Since the sutras were written before the the concepts of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman existed, the use of the term brahman creates ambiguity. Sankara's intention regarding which of the two he is referring to when he uses the term brahman, is obviously determined by his definition of the concepts of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman.

 

[ozone]

An Individual calls up the Police station to enquire about his friend Police Officer. The person attending to the phone informs him that the officer has gone to the Prison.
In another incident an individual calls up a home to enquire about his relative. The person attending to the phone informs him that the relative has gone to the Prison.

Both are facts. What is real needs some understanding and thinking.

 

[sangom]

Dear sangom, I agree with your assesment of BG. But, looking from advaitic POV, it is a wonder how they can believe, within their [/SIZE]axiomatic system, that BG can teach them anything real.

Dear Shri Nara,

After making some careful study of BG (but without trying to mug-up slokas and thus becoming a BG expert and what not) I have come to the conclusion that the BG would not have been there, except probably in the form of one or two slokas, in the first or original Mahabharata which was called "Jayaa". The present M. Bh. itself contains evidence of the Jayaa having been 'modified' twice (possibly enlarged to its present size). The second stage in the 'expansion' of BG was possibly only extending to the second chapter and consisted of the saamkhya yoga pov only. Later on, by several stages, the various other viewpoints were also added chapter by chapter and each of them was named as "...yoga", a very peculiar way of naming chapters. Poetic imagination travelled side by side with the extent of deification of Krishna into the rung of Eeswara, or the Supreme God.

In the midst of all these nobody would have bothered about the advaita pov, even if the BG was half way through its development and that was why Sankara had a different text with some of the present day verses omitted.

 

[sangom]

I understand why Shri Sangom was so firm in his objections to my categorization of the brahman referred in sutra 5 as saguna brahman. The author of the book refers to brahman as implying nirguna brahman. But I think we need to interpret the meaning of brahman purely by context. So when brahman is said to be the object of inquiry or the purport of all vedanta texts, it should refer to nirguna brahman. But when brahman is said to be the creator of the universe it obviously should refer to saguna brahman. Since the sutras were written before the the concepts of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman existed, the use of the term brahman creates ambiguity. Sankara's intention regarding which of the two he is referring to when he uses the term brahman, is obviously determined by his definition of the concepts of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman.

My dear Sravna,

If, as you say, rather simplistically, that "Sankara's intention regarding which of the two he is referring to when he uses the term brahman, is obviously determined by his definition of the concepts of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman.", I feel it is doing great injustice to Sankara himself.

In the context of the Sutra 5, I find, from the sanskrit bhashya of Sankara, that He probably goes on a tangent and attacks the Saamkhya point of view, according to which the "Pradhaana" as the cause of creation. In that process of refutation quite probably Sankara ascribes the capacity of thinking, hearing, intelligence and so on to the NB itself by equating the omnipotent, omniscient, thinking, intelligent and creative NB with the always luminous sun. This is what I could gather, but I may be wrong. But if my reading is without errors, then Sankara makes the NB somewhat of a qualified "nirguna", very similar to the rider we find very often saying "the owners are entitled to change the rules and regulations at any time without giving any notice and this cannot be questioned", etc.

Instead of changing the rules and regulations, you are adopting a strategy of a toggle switch between NB & SB according to context. That seems to be the difference in approach.

I am sorry to say that what we are considering here does not do justice to Sankara's Bhashya.

 

[tks]

My dear Sravna,

If, as you say, rather simplistically, that "Sankara's intention regarding which of the two he is referring to when he uses the term brahman, is obviously determined by his definition of the concepts of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman.", I feel it is doing great injustice to Sankara himself.

In the context of the Sutra 5, I find, from the sanskrit bhashya of Sankara, that He probably goes on a tangent and attacks the Saamkhya point of view, according to which the "Pradhaana" as the cause of creation. In that process of refutation quite probably Sankara ascribes the capacity of thinking, hearing, intelligence and so on to the NB itself by equating the omnipotent, omniscient, thinking, intelligent and creative NB with the always luminous sun. This is what I could gather, but I may be wrong. But if my reading is without errors, then Sankara makes the NB somewhat of a qualified "nirguna", very similar to the rider we find very often saying "the owners are entitled to change the rules and regulations at any time without giving any notice and this cannot be questioned", etc.

Instead of changing the rules and regulations, you are adopting a strategy of a toggle switch between NB & SB according to context. That seems to be the difference in approach.

I am sorry to say that what we are considering here does not do justice to Sankara's Bhashya.

I tend to agree with Sri Sangom on the last line of the post. However Sri Sankara never "attacked" anyone's views - it was purely a desire on his part and those with other points of views to subscribe to logic and understanding. His point - counter point analysis is found in most of his work.

I am digging up some notes and see if I can make an attempt to share what I know to help answer the question about NB and how it can give rise to the phenomenological world .

It will be a "feeble attempt" at best since the infrastructure and context is lacking.. It will open up more questions than answer and I do not want to get drawn into this more. I have shared my reasons for reticence in earlier posts for what it is worth.

Let me first share my thoughts about 'maturity' in the next post and in the following post at least answer the basic question at least I as I understand. It will still not do justice to Sri Sankara's teaching but it will be a but a 'weak attempt' ...

After this I do not plan to post much more other than answer sincere questions (and if I have a reasonable answer). Question such as 'how can Sri Krishna be viewed as Avatara teaching Arjuna if everything is 'unreal' 'is a legitimate question with insincere intent. Proper answers to this exist and will take 10 to 15 pages even after one has a lot of background.

My suggestion is for sincere student to pursue independent studies.

Now let me move on to my next post ..

 

[tks]

Maturity Continuum ..

Most human beings want to satisfy their desires, like to avoid what they dislike/hate, want security (money, future, and even ensure good 'after life' whatever that might be), avoid being a victim or be subjected to insecure situations.

Many people when confronted with issues or have some serious wants prefer to have a 'God' who they want to believe would listen to their requests.

Beyond all this some are curious, and all of us age to our death.

There is a notion of 'maturity' of a person and each of us understand this word to mean different things. A side effect of a attempt to learn Vedanta is to rise in the maturity continuum to become eligible to do a serious study. If this statement does not make sense kindly wait till you have read the whole post.



There is a point at the end of all this ...

My thoughts of rank order of least mature to more mature worldview in this maturity continuum curve is as follows.

1. Those engaged in fake behavior of any kind will be least mature. They live the values opposite to what is taught in Chapter 13 of B. Gita. This include all those people engaged in adharmic activities, promote selfish activities without regard to others, and hide behind religion to commit injurious acts to other beings (including human beings). It includes psedo Vendantists, and psedo/ fake atheists/agnostics. It is easy to recognize these traits even if it is hard to describe the traits

2. Dogma and belief based 'Theists' - they define Dharma only by what they understand to be Dharma in a religious scriptures. It includes those who have suspended their capacity to reason though their intent is sincere to follow a dogma of what is *preached* to them.

3. Uninformed Atheists come next in this continuum. These are people that want to think. While the starting point for all human beings is ignorance these people are unable to appreciate this when they acquire special purpose knowledge in a given field. They lack abilities but somehow have declared that they know for sure there is no God. It is a deadly mix of ignorance of such topics coupled with silly arrogance that they have an answer .

4 Informed atheists come next in this continuum. These people subscribe to logic and only logic. They are willing to do their homework. The people who subscribed to Sankhya Philosophy, and great scientists of today belong in this level. Vedas do not have a definitive views for personal God which is why Sankhya people are actually atheists though they do subscribe to the authority of Vedas (blindly with incorrect understanding). The scientists of excellent reputation fall here since they believe that life form can someone be explained to have originated out of physical/biological laws. Actually they do not realize that they have assumptions and beliefs built into their model and will argue endlessly how their position is not one based on any belief system. However what makes them better than item #3 above is that they are honest in their search for truth.

5. Agnostics that subscribe to search for truth come next in this continuum. They are thinking people and understand that God is not something to believed in and hence they emphasize knowledge. They admit they do not know but that they are in search of truth

6. Next in this list are people who understand what Dharma is. By the way one does not have to be born in India or even have heard of Hinduism or even know the word Dharma to be Dharmic. There is no scriptural training needed for someone to be Dharmic. It is about dealing with others like they would like to be treated (so called Golden Rule). They strive to achieve their desires and security through Dharmic means and pray to God (they reject parts of Dogma of a theology that is harmful to other beings). Some may not be engaged in religious traditions but they earn respect of others for their insistence to do the 'right' things in a conflict free manner.


Study of Vedanta is *not* for any of the people above. They are not qualified and will not have met the pre-requisites.

In this world of forums and internet anyone can engage in Vedantic entertainment using words from scriptures.

Most of humanity is in the continuum above. Sometimes based on a given situation one may find themselves moving in this continuum curve.

No one other than an individual can answer where they fall ..

You dont have to agree with my statements above - I wanted to convey a point about pre-requisites with this post. Yes it has some 'masala' but hopefully not a non-veg kind

 

[renuka]

Study of Vedanta is *not* for any of the people above. They are not qualified and will not have met the pre-requisites.

Dear TKS ji,

I dont know if I would agree with your post.

If going by your list Ratnakara would have never become Valmiki.

I feel it is actually hard to judge anyone as being qualified to study Vedanta or pursue a religious study.

Each of us humans come with our Prarabdha Karma which is going on and may be after the effect expires the person becomes fit for study for anything.

May be Valmiki's Prarabhda ended the day he met Narada.

So we would really have no idea who is fit for what..I feel each human has potential within and deciding who is fit or unfit for study might just make a person lose out a chance to bloom.

There is always a Eureka moment for each person..where he transforms from Sinner to Saint.

The duty of a Guru is to give equal opportunity to all and make his garden bloom with the flowers of Jnaana.